[governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
Nick Ashton-Hart
nashton at ccianet.org
Mon Feb 4 16:14:40 EST 2013
Given that WSIS+10 and the MDG review both take place in 2015, shouldn't
there be more interconnection between the two?
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart
Geneva Representative
Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA)
Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430
*Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here:
http://meetme.so/nashton*
Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling.
On 27 Jan 2013, at 19:39, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
In addition to a focus on Internet Rights and Principles (R&P) for IGF-Bali,
there should also I believe, be a focus on WSIS +10 (upcoming in 2015) and
rather than de-emphasizing Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) it
should be re-oriented and revivified (if for no other reason than a natural
association with the LDC location of IGF-Bali) with an emphasis on the WSIS
declaration and how it might be updated in light of rapidly changing
circumstances.
The admittedly stale IG4D plenary sessions could be replaced by bringing to
the fore some of the emerging experiences (and new actors) in IG4D (in
mobiles and broadband for example) and then reflecting on the IG
issues/opportunities/gaps that are emerging.
And of course, there is a link between the R&P issue and WSIS +10 at least
through the WSIS Declaration's concern for an "inclusive Information
Society" (one of the reasons why it is so astonishing and disappointing that
the ISOC, IETF, IAB statement on standards recently noted on this list
omitted any mention or concern for "inclusion" as one of the principles on
which standards should be assessed).
M
-----Original Message-----
From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com <apeake at gmail.com>] On
Behalf Of Adam Peake
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:27 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Robert Guerra
Subject: Re: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
wrote:
Quick thoughts:
- Call for proposals: Should be done in an open and transparent fashion. I
am of the opinion that the call should be done after the open
consultation/MAG meeting in Feb. That's been how it has been done in the
past, and works well.
Think you're wrong. The first meeting typically proposes themes for the
year. IGF website now says:
"Call for Contributions
Stakeholders are invited to submit written contributions taking stock of the
Baku 2012 IGF meeting and looking forward - suggestions on themes and
format, for the IGF 2013 meeting. Contributions should be emailed to
igf at unog.ch before 14 February 2013."
Nothing new about this. The MAG should respond to contributions from
stakeholders. The first program paper will come soon after the Feb/March
meeting. It will layout themes for the year.
For the main themes, my suggestion is all five should remain as guides for
workshops, but security openness privacy, access, Internet governance for
development were poor in Baku and should be dropped as main sessions.
Taking stock and emerging issues should merge as a single session so that a
review of the week tells us which issues have 'emerged' as important and
provide pointers for themes for the next year (it makes little sense to have
emerging issues as anything other than a response to what we've learned over
the previous 3 days). Such a session might also help inform
recommendations/suggestions from the IGF.
Adam
To not do so, would give the appearance that the MAG has already decided
on issues/topics and is trying to impose them. That, is not acceptable.
- We seem to be still stuck on the same nomenclature for overall
themes that were developed years ago. As I proposed at last year's IGF
MAG consultations, we might want to see if the frame of "Stewardship"
that is used in international relations discussions might be helpful
- In the proposed schedule below I don't see where issues such as Cyber
Security, Openness, Surveillance, Rights & privacy would feed into. Yes,
they have been part of IGF's in the past, but they are still key issues of
concern for all stakeholders.
- If we want experiment with different formats for discussion and dialogue
at the IGF, I would highly suggest we borrow approaches taken at other
highly successful meetings.
Let's borrow from the success of a variety of informal/ad-hoc/Discussion
Presentation formats (such as TED, "Davos Style" , unconfererence,
lightning talks, BOF's) are used successfully at other conferences such as
the IETF, Davos, Tech at State and TEDx.
More informal styles of engagement might prove to be a bit challenging to
some stakeholder groups - such as governments - who aren't accustomed to
them. Success will require an experienced moderator/facilitator.
Refs:
Unconference Format
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconference
TEDx
http://www.ted.com/tedx
NTEN - Nonprofit Tech Conference
http://www.nten.org/ntc
Robert
--
R. Guerra
Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081
Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom
Email: rguerra at privaterra.org
On 2013-01-27, at 6:59 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
I don't agree with Internet principles as the overall theme, but do
agree it's a topic that needs significant focus. I think it's clear
after 7 IGFs that a session of 2 or 3 hours and a few scattered
workshops doesn't begin to scratch the surface of an issue. So how
could we use a day? Would more depth of discussion be more likely to
lead to some form of outcome?
Just a thought:
Structured discussion on the morning (might be a panel or a round
table in a plenary setting).
Free, small group discussion middle of the day (working in small
ad-hoc groups to address issues and or questions identified during
the
morning)
Back to "plenary" for shared discussion? (use moderators to manage
the flow: some are getting very good at this role. For example, I
think Bill Drake and Jeanette Hofmann have been excellent. Better
than the "professionals".)
But just a thought, how else might a full day be used to develop a
useful dialogue about one topic?
Schedule might look like:
Day 1. AM: Opening ceremony.
Day 1. PM: Critical Internet Resources (3 hours) Day 2. Enhanced
Cooperation (2 hours sessions, work over "lunch") Day 3. Internet
Principles (2 hours sessions, work over "lunch") Day 4. AM: Taking
Stock and Emerging Issues (3 hours) Day 4. PM: Outcomes (1 hour).
Closing Ceremony
My opinion, 3 hours is a long time and takes a good subject or it
drags. Only CIR from Baku worked the 3 hours well. (IMHO etc etc)
Adam
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 8:31 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:
I may also remind that I had proposed that IGC supports the Internet
Rights and Principles (IRP) Group which is likely to propose that
(1) Internet principles in some form be the overall theme of the
next IGF - Maybe something more descriptive as - 'public interest
principles for the Internet' or 'Shaping global principles for the
Internet'
(2) A round table on Internet Principles be held at the next IGF.
I am developing a first draft for the IRP Group, if IGC so wants I
can share it with IGC as well.
parminder
On Sunday 27 January 2013 04:46 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
Hi Norbert,
No, sorry, no time to work on a draft. But look forward to
discussion and hopefully some consensus.
Adam
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
[with IGC Coordinator hat on]
Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
Resending email sent to the list on Jan 10. Deadline for
contributions is Feb 14.
Just over two weeks to agree any contribution.
Thanks for reminding us! This is urgent and imporant.
Adam, are you willing and able to take the time to quickly produce a
first draft?
Greetings,
Norbert
A few comments for the February/March consultation.
Public archive of MAG mailing list needed, not been updated for a
year.
Workshops: too many. Cut to between 80 and 100. Make this target
number known when the call for applications is published, might be
the first time quite a large number of proposals are rejected (might
think about implications of this for the IGF), people should expect
to be disappointed.
Minimum of 50% of MAG members must complete assessment of all
workshops.
Clarify rules for other sessions (open forums, dynamic coalition,
etc.)
No reason an initial call to prepare proposals can't be made before
the Feb meeting (more time better and the meetings a little later
than usual). A reminder to MAG members to ready their stakeholders.
For workshops, keep the current themes (access, SOP
[security/openness/privacy], IG4D [Internet governance for
development], CIR [critical Internet resources], emerging issues).
Have the MAG better define Internet Governance, how it must be
considered in workshop proposals (there are other spaces in WSIS
follow-up for non-IG issues). Use an evaluation form for workshops
(at the moment don't even know if a room was empty or overflowing,
simple count a good idea.) However, indications are that while
there were too many workshops in Baku many were strong in content,
well received. MAG should not cut what looks like a success to
favor the floundering main sessions.
Merging not the always the solution, it's too easy an answer for MAG
in their evaluation to say merge simply because proposals have
similar words in the title. If merging proposed then the new
workshop needs support or tendency to end up with 2 workshops in the
same space (merge in name only).
Overall theme for 2013: "enhanced cooperation -- meaningful
participation of developing countries in Internet governance".
Main sessions. Mix up the formats, 3 hours generally too long, some
poorly attended in Baku and many grumbled complaints about poor
content, poor preparation, repeating issues from previous years, etc.
Some main sessions need better preparation (and some were good -
transcripts illustrate the differences, MAG needs to be aware they
have a role to complete, not last minute for a meeting of the IGF's
importance.) Invite speakers early. Use (look for) funds to
support speakers.
Taking stock and emerging issues: mix the two sessions, then
justifies 3 hours. Probably best held on the final morning (i.e.
emerging issues become issues the IGF thinks emerging as important
for the coming year(s)).
Final afternoon: session on outcomes (1 hour), followed by closing.
Critical Internet Resources (strong session in Baku, justifies 3
hours). Keep as before.
New theme: Enhanced Cooperation. Sessions in mixed formats over 1
day, e.g. Morning expert panel session 2 hours. Follow by a long
break where people encouraged to join self-organizing small groups
to discuss a few set questions and ideas from the morning panel.
Afternoon, 2 hour moderated session with audience only, no
panel/experts etc. Bring back comments from the small groups.
New theme: Internet principles. One day, perhaps same format as
suggested for enhanced cooperation. Try something different.
Development aspect of IG always overlooked and too often "governance"
lost as discussion focuses on IT for development. Open specific
public comment on design/scope of IG4D session. Bring back to the
May meeting to decide on topics and format.
Time to drop access and SOP as main sessions, but keep as workshops
and perhaps round-tables.
Adam
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130204/99901f35/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list